It has come to my attention that some students in a section at UBC have been accused of academic misconduct. Or, they were, and now it seems that rather than pursue that route, a test is going to be re-administered. That is not, in my view, fair.
The situation is, broadly, that an instructor told students that they could “google anything” for their open book exam. This led to students googling the solutions to problems, as, for example, on websites that log test questions. So I have heard, the instructor deemed this to be against the “spirit” of “google anything.”
Firstly, courses of instruction are offered by UBC pursuant to statute:
47 (1) In this section, “university” means a university named in section 3 (1).
(2) A university must, so far as and to the full extent that its resources from time to time permit, do all of the following:
(a) establish and maintain colleges, schools, institutes, faculties, departments, chairs and courses of instruction; (https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96468_01)
The disciplinary authority is vested in the President:
61 (1) The president has power to suspend a student and to deal summarily with any matter of student discipline.
(2) On the exercise of the power, the president must promptly report the action to the standing committee established under section 37 (1) (v) with a statement of his or her reasons.
(3) The action of the president is final and subject in all cases to an appeal to the senate.
(https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96468_01)
Statutory powers are subject to judicial review in British Columbia:
“statutory power” means a power or right conferred by an enactment
(a) to make a regulation, rule, bylaw or order,
(b) to exercise a statutory power of decision,
(c) to require a person to do or to refrain from doing an act or thing that, but for that requirement, the person would not be required by law to do or to refrain from doing,
(d) to do an act or thing that would, but for that power or right, be a breach of a legal right of any person, or
(e) to make an investigation or inquiry into a person’s legal right, power, privilege, immunity, duty or liability;
“statutory power of decision” means a power or right conferred by an enactment to make a decision deciding or prescribing
(a) the legal rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties or liabilities of a person, or
(b) the eligibility of a person to receive, or to continue to receive, a benefit or licence, whether or not the person is legally entitled to it,
and includes the powers of the Provincial Court;” (https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96241_01)
The course is offered per University Act ss. 47(2)(a). The restrictions upon an examination are statutory powers per definition (c). If the professor says I may not look at the dictionary during an exam, for example, that is a requirement to refrain from doing something that I am not required by law to refrain from doing. There is no law against consulting the dictionary. There is also no law against copying the dictionary, if I am not allowed to do that on an exam, it is per statutory power. The same for requiring me to cite my sources, there is no law requiring one to cite sources.
Certain sorts of examinations and lines of work, for example, require you to use a manual. I have a friend who worked as a Helicopter Mechanic. He told me that you are not allowed to memorize the instructions. They are so complicated, and helicopters are so dangerous, that you do it by the book every time. So clearly the manner of examination depends on the course of instruction, and there is no “general unwritten rule” against using the book to perform the examination. In some cases, you do not want people trained to rely on their memories. The University, presumably, offers both sorts of instruction, so it is not a legal requirement that examinations be closed book.
Here, we see that the professor said “google anything.” The view that that in a course of instruction, the “default position” is a closed book exam with no googling is false. The restrictions upon plagiarism, looking up answers, “phoning a friend” as in Who Wants to be a Millionaire, are not requirements prescribed by law, they are prescribed pursuant to the University’s statutory power to offer a course of instruction, and to set the terms for those courses.
In a course of instruction, the instructor decides how to evaluate the students. This is, in addition to being a statutory power, a contract made by the instructor on behalf of the University, to provide the course under certain terms, for example, to have an exam where one may “google anything.” The contract is to be interpreted in its plain and literal sense, not by reference to unstated premises.
Also, considered without reference to the Law of British Columbia, there is a precedent case that I recall, where an Instructor at the University offered the following instruction to students:
“You may bring anything that will fit on one 8.5×11 sheet of paper.”
One bright student, Jones, was friends with Llewellyn, the 4’9 Grad Student. Jones brought Llewellyn to the Examination, stood him on the piece of paper and proceeded to ask him how to answer the questions. This was considered, I am told, with much gravity by a very rare Convocation of the whole University, who solemnly adjudged that the Student was in the right. As I understand it, the record of this judgment were lost in the Brock Hall Fire of 1954, but I heard about it from a guy in the Pit Pub, who heard about it from a friend, whose Barber went to UBC in the 1940s.
It is my judgment that the grades should stand and everyone should learn from the situation and move on. Anyone who wishes to appeal this judgment may leave a comment and I will consider it.